Burzynski: Morally reprehensible

I think this because his treatment is sold for extortionate amounts of money to vulnerable, dying cancer patients in their last months – sometimes bringing them thousands of miles away from the majority of their family – so they can be injected with a drug that’s been in development for more than 30 years, yet has no evidence base to support its use. We also know that he uses large amounts of chemotherapyin his clinic too but charging extortionate amounts of money for it.

Also, I think he is morally reprehensible because if he really has discovered a cure for various cancers, why the hell is he sitting on 30+ years of research when he could publish it and convince the scientific community that antineoplaston therapy is effective? He has a moral duty to do so. Hell, even if the results are negative he has a moral duty given the amount of money he’s charging. If it turns out that his treatment is ineffective, he should put his hands up and state “Look guys, it was a hypothesis that just didn’t work out.” If it turns out that his treatment is ineffective, he’d be wise to donate the large sums of money he’s made to cancer research. Sure, it’d be humiliating to have his life’s work undone, but at the same time it means that cancer patients wouldn’t be misled into believing his treatment is effective.

Another thing I don’t understand is why Burzynski’s patients/relatives of patients don’t demand that he publishes the results. They’re paying for this research to happen. Without their funds, Burzynski wouldn’t have been able to do the research. They funded it, so surely they have influence over whether he writes the trial up. Or am I just being too hopeful? If I were in that situation and something appeared to be working, I’d want it to be written up to further scientific research so that more people could benefit.

I have one thing to ask of you and one thing only. Tweet something along these lines:

RT @rhysmorgan Burzynski has had more than 30 years to publish his data. Why doesn’t he prove antineoplastons work? http://rhysmorgan.co/2012/01/burzynski-morally-reprehensible

or

RT @rhysmorgan Burzynski has a moral duty to publish his data. If it works, it’ll be more widely available. http://rhysmorgan.co/2012/01/burzynski-morally-reprehensible

or of course, phrase it in your own way.

Also, if anyone knows of any way that could force Burzynski to present his data or hand it over to someone capable of writing it up. I’d appreciate your contact! Use the Contact Me link or tweet to me. Thanks.

Burzynski is a real mystery. My own guess is that he is waiting for Obama to change the patent laws. Now the government, and billions and billions of public donations pay for drug research, but the drug companies have the exclusive rights, and ownership on the patent, and they mark up the profits 2-3 hundred thousand % on the drugs.When Obama will change the patent laws, the government will own the patents, and will rent it out to, maybe even hundreds of manufacturers for a small fee, and will compensate from the fees the original inventor.
I dont know how the Burzynski prices compere with other cancer clinics, or if he gets any research money from the government, but as I heard some cancer hospitals could cost 3-5 hundred thousand dollars, {In the back room open the champagne bottles][ maybe this is my sinister side of my skepticism.]
However now a lot of stem cell clinics opening up everywhere to cure everything, but I m cot convinced how injecting some dead cells into people would cure anything, or how it would regenerate any organ that was taken out.
In Russia the Dr Petrov system is regenerating organs, and cure everything, and even raising the dead without any stem cells, or drugs in his Moscow clinic.

I suspect that if US patent laws are changed, or if the health authorities shut down his clinic for unethical practice, or if the tax authorities get too curious, Burzynski will move to somewhere like Mexico.

The patents are in his name, not the research institute’s.

As for prices, Burzynski’s have been established to be well over the top, charging many times more for FDA-approved drugs than other clinics, such as M.D. Anderson. Otherwise, there seems to be a deliberate veil over how much he actually makes. It is certainly well in excess of $5 million p.a.

Mmmm … do you know the basics of the American government? The Executive Branch doesn’t legislate so Obama cannot “change the patent laws.” Then you suggest that after the patent laws are changed the “government will own the patents.” You loco?

SHAME him!!! You are mislead and deceived. Sooooo, if you had cancer you would resort to chemo which will give you a 2.1% 5 year mortality chance rather than seek a sure?!! LOL!!! All men say tough things UNTIL death is at their door.

Bowel cancer 13 years ago, stage 3C survival rate of about 40%. I choose chemo’, the established treatment with supporting evidence and guess what I’m still here, looks like I did seek a cure. Based on your logic my anecdote proves that the mainstream works, end of.
Also it didn’t cost me a penny, thank-you NHS!
BTW What Burzynski does is chemotherapy.

Thing is, *IF* the data exists, and *IF* he publishes it and *IF* it proves antineoplastibobbers DO work, other people will start doing it too and he will lose his monopoly, therefore he’s out of pocket..

Thing is, *IF* the data exists, and *IF* he publishes it and *IF* it proves antineoplastibobbers DON’T work, people won’t bother signing up for his clinic, therefore he’s out of pocket…

I suspect that Burzynski’s patients/relatives of patients don’t fully appreciate that it’s a clinical trial, and not an innovative treatment. It’ll be down to people like you Rhys, Ben Goldacre and the other sceptics to raise the profile of this issue. Keep up the good work, you have my support.

To me this is the single worst aspect of the whole fiasco. It’s clear that the main active ingredient of antineoplaston therapy is a known drug called phenylacetate, sometimes given in its pro-drug form as phenylbutyrate – both drugs are licensed for use in the US and Europe, and in the US phenylbutyrate is approved for use off-label for treating some cancers.

These drugs have been investigated by the medical research community and found to be pretty crappy, and ineffective in most cancers, although with inkilings of efficacy in some brain tumours.

There are a number of apparent brain tumour success stories that have emerged from the clinic, but we have absolutely no way of knowing whether it is genuinely his treatment that has worked – for example, what stage they were, prior treatment history, how many people *weren’t* successful…

Given that Burzynski has basically been running clinical trials of *known, licensed drugs* in potentially hundreds of brain tumours patients for several years it is absolutely scandalous that he has not published any decent clinical data to show whether they work or not.

By deliberately hiding the true identity of these chemicals (“antineoplastons – it just sounds like bullshit straight away…) he has misled the medical and research community and potentially deprived thousands of patients from knowing about a licensed drug that may have some efficacy in brain tumours. The sad thing is that until he actually publishes his research, like any ethical, compassionate doctor should, we will never know if it works or not.

The full beam of our anger should be focused on the behaviour of Burzynski and his clinic, and also the people who uncritically promote this as a “cure for all cancers”.

If treating brain tumours with phenylacetate/phenylbutyrate does work, his actions have deprived many thousands of cancer patients of knowing about a drug that potentially might benefit them, or (if it doesn’t work) he has perpetuated a wicked fraud.

I hold absolutely no truck with claims of “conspiracy” – that the NCI/FDA are suppressing this cure. From my reading of the evidence I’ve managed to find, this stems from an incident in the 1990s involving a scientist (Dvorit Samid) who worked for Burzynski, and a successfully treated patient who was related to a big cheese at a pharma company.

The company got interested in the therapy, then realised the active ingredient was actually the known drug phenylacetate (researched in cancer since the 1950s). Burzynski failed to patent PA because he didn’t think it was the active ingredient in antineoplastons, which just goes to show what a poor scientist he is. The NCI patented PA/PB as cancer treatment and set about running clinical trials (for free!!). Annoyingly, the results of the largest of these (a phase 2 trial involving a large number of kids with brain tumours) was never published, suggesting the results were less than impressive. But the narrative “we tried it, it actually turned out to be a bit rubbish and cause crappy side effects so we don’t use it” is much less powerful than “ZOMG! THE NCI AND EVIL FDA STOLE HIS TREATMENT AND ARE SUPPRESSING IT BECOZ THEY WANT U TO DIE OF TEH CANCER!!!!111”

Instead of giving up the game and joining in with the trials, Burzynski has maintained the charade of “antineoplastons” and gone it alone (for money!!). Interestingly, he holds a patent for making phenylbutyrate (phenylacetate costs pennies, and is cheaper than PB) so he doesn’t have to buy it from the company that sells it (Ucyclyd) – this might explain why his patients can only get “antineoplastons” from his pharmacy, and at apparently huge cost http://margaretmanning.blogspot.com/2009/04/pills-and-bills.html

He has no incentive to prove whether his therapy works or not – as long as there are alt-med conspiracy nuts spinning their “non-toxic non-chemo cancer cure” line and desperate patients, he will get patients rolling in and all the $$$ goes to his coffers. Meanwhile the NCI and all the other ethical cancer researchers around the world go back to finding genuine ways to improve survival from this shitty disease.

In my opinion Burzynski is not a quack in the traditional sense. From the evidence I’ve seen, my opinion is he is apparently a very poor scientist and an unethical doctor. I can only conclude that the only patients he cares about are the ones who can afford to come through his doors.

Shelia, I hate to break it to you (ok, not really) but we all will die. And that will be that…done and dusted.
Secondly, a bunch of youtube videos and ‘patient’ interviews don’t prove anything least of all the TRUTH (your capitals). Evidence will reveal the TRUTH. The good doctor Burzynski can have a whole youtube channel full of groupies singing Kumbaya in praise of his uber-genius, in absence of any data and evidence to underpin such assertions he remains a quack. Simple really.

They said the same about Tesla..stole his work and re-packaged it.. the truth is the best way to keep the money flowing, because this is about dollars people, is to discredit, then sneak in the back door and steal the work you discredit, then repackage it in segments, so noone will ever be the wiser. i did see the films and viewed the patents. question: if his work means nothing and he is a quack, why did the government patent the exact same things the good doctor had patents on? and why did the do it during the trials.? im just saying…i dont believe the usfda nor the nci for a minute, they stand to loose billions..

Mike- “why did the government patent the exact same things the good doctor had patents on?”

Could you please clarify what you mean by this? What patents does Burzynski hold and how did the government patent the same thing? Isn’t the point of patents that other people can’t do the same thing?

I put to you the reverse of your own question- If his work does mean something and he is not a quack, how is it that he has been in business since the 70s without:
a) being able to progress past stage II clinical trials?
b) being able to publish clear results as to the overall efficiacy of his treatment (not just the occasional singular case)?
c) convincing the FDA -the people in charge of making sure drugs are safe- that his treatment is both viable and safe?
d) convincing at least a decent chunk of unconnected medical professionals that his treatment works?
e) convincing himself that his antineoplastons treatment actually works, as he uses chemotherapy medications alongside his own inventions? (see Rhys’ link to oncologist David Gorski’s article- fascinating and enlightening)

You cannot base any argument on what you’ve seen on Youtube, in the same way that you cannot (and should not) be convinced by reading one man’s blog. What you should do is read as much as possible from as many sources as possible. Cross reference the facts, if possible research the data published in medical journals or other credible scientific sources and as a general rule trust the opinion of a respected medical professional over that of a video created and posted by an anonymous Youtube user.

I agree with the idea of a moral duty to publish his work if he has indeed cured (some) cancer. However, the idea that his patients have the right to demand that he publish because their money funded the research is a bit naive. I bought an iPod. That doesn’t give me any right to demand that Apple divulge their R&D to me or anyone else. I bought a product. End of transaction.

Bryan – nobody dies if someone else doesn’t know how to make an iPod. Your comment is ridiculous. Cancer treatments are developed and tested by scientists all over the world – they are patented and published and shared so that doctors can save lives.

If Burzynski is sitting on the “cure for cancer”, then it is his moral duty to publish. Based on information on the clinic’s own website, antineoplastons are known drugs that are licensed in Europe and the US. How amazing would it be if the “Burzsnki protocol” was used by doctors all over the world to save children dying of brain tumours?! It would make his name, and he would go down in history in the same way that Sidney Farber and all the other genuine pioneers have.

The fact that he refuses to publish the results of decades of “trials” suggests that in fact the treatment doesn’t work. This is not some crazy new drug that costs $$$$$$$ to make. It’s drugs that have been known about for decades, and in the case of phenylacetate cost pennies. Where is the data?

Bryan- I find what you have just written utterly horrific. You cannot possibly compare cancer to any form of MP3 player. For starters, you bought the iPod because you know it works. With or without a schematic diagram, millions of people have iPods and they clearly are an effective way of playing music. Furthermore, if for some reason your iPod doesnt work, you can take it to the Apple store and they will fix or replace it. If you participate in a trial for a cancer treatment, you certainly deserve to see the paperwork, whether or not you have contributed financially to the project. Admittedly, prospective patients should really look for at least some positive data before handing over their money but as this is advertised as a trial, you can forgive hope outweighing existant fact. To participate in a trial but then have the results denied to you, and the wider public, is as illogical as running in a race but no one announcing the placements. Except far more emotionally damaging, scientifically inept and generally wrong by most peoples’ standards. And, as I mentioned, if your iPod doesn’t work you can take it back, if your cancer treatment doesn’t work, you die. So please be careful with flippant similes.

You bought an iPod to listen to music (maybe watch some movies or TV shows). You can do those things with your iPod- the end result was delivered as promised; end of story.

If you bought your iPod because you had a malignant brain tumor and Apple said that listening to music on an iPod would cure even late stage neurological cancer, then you better believe they would have to share their research. They wouldn’t have to let the world know how the iPod is made; but they would have to divulge all the clinical trial data supporting it’s safety and efficacy at treating brain cancer.

Why? Well, first, I’m skeptical because of my own medical training, which informs me that if nothing else, research such as that done by this doctor, is inherantly flawed.

I’m further skeptical because I don’t believe in the established medical and financial cannons and the blah-back relating to them. Yes, in fact, I DO believe that there is a medical INDUSTRY, but I also know, albeit based on personal and anecdotal experience, that a great many, if not most, people who go into research, even at the upper echelons, actually do have some altruistic leanings, or at least a spirit of “what happens if…?”

In other words, no I don’t think refusals to accept alternative, or even “alternative” (note the admittedly sarcastic differentiation) necessarily mean that there’s a conspiracy to promote big business.

And finally, why am I a skeptical OLD lady?

Twelve years ago I had fatal, end-stage, breast cancer.

Yes, dear, you read it right.

Why am I alive? Because I pursued aggressive treatment. Oncology was NOT my field of expertise. That didn’t prevent me from researching treatment plans, nor did it prevent me from actively questioning and participating in my own care.

I am not a religious person, though I am a spiritual person. I spent as much time sitting under a tree as I did sitting in the clinic with a needle in my arm and drugs flowing into me.

I watched what I ate (sometimes twice, once eating it and once throwing it up!). I tried to maintain not a sense of normalcy, but at least a semblance of daily life.

I was NEVER desperate enough to resort to unproven “miracle” cures or anything else.

Clinical notes in my medical records cite the fact that I never appeared depressed; because the care team never saw me depressed. Remember the tree I mentioned above? The tree “saw” my tears. No one else did.

One of the care team even notes the deep sense of spiritual commitment I showed, though she somehow missed the real factor —

— Sheer scottish stubbornness. No damned collection of misguided cells was going to make ME die before I am good and ready to do so.

But what I find most tragic about any discussion of any kind of cancer is simply this — People like this Dr.B-thing prey not only on the bank accounts (and tax dollars) of terrified, desperate patients…

… They prey also on their emotions. This is the most insidious form of emotional blackmail and torture that I can imagine.

This man promises a “cure” for over one hundred forms of cancer, if a patient PAYS him to participate in a clinical trial.

Yes, and, televangelists promise you that their god will make you prosperous if you send them money. Psychics tell you that for a small fee, they will give you lottery numbers, or sweepstakes hits, or help you avoid disasters.

At least P.T Barnum, under the same conditions, actually delivered on his promise to show sensation-seekers the “Egress”… or “Way Out”.

In short? Dr. B-thing is less honest than a carnival side-show poster.

Thanks for your story Alla – hope you continue to be skeptical for a long while yet.

From what I’ve seen, the most egregious damage is being done not by the clinic themselves (who seem to be relatively cautious in what they do and don’t claim) but by those speaking in their name – for example, the zealots on Twitter, blogs, Youtube, Facebook etc who say “ZOMG he has a CURE FOR ALL CANCERS!!!” This is a dangerous nonsense – we know exactly what he is doing – some patients are getting conventional chemo and targeted agents, with or without phenylacetate/phenylbutyrate (aka “antineoplastons”), while others – mostly with brain tumours – are just getting “antineoplastons” (usually intravenous phenylacetate and phenylacetylglutamine). Let us never forget that these are known drugs that are licensed in the US and Europe and can be used off-label to treat cancer. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-antineoplastons-and-the-orphan-drug-sodium-phenyl-butyrate/

I very much doubt that any patient with a cancer that *isn’t* a brain tumour is receiving “antineoplastons” alone – and from what I’ve seen of the submission to the Texas Medical Board and the clinic’s own papers, patients with other types of cancer are getting all manner of chemo. therefore people who claim that “Burzynski’s antineoplastons are a cure for all types of cancer” are desperately ignorant of the true nature of what the clinic offers.

As I said before, the saddest thing is that if there is *any* efficacy of PA/PB for brain tumours – which I believe there might be, given the research done by proper scientists into it – we will never know, because Burzynski’s research methods are so shockingly bad. And that is a disgrace to the medical profession and a disservice to cancer patients around the world.

With the latest revelations that one of his former patients is suing him for “using her like an ATM” and displaying what allegedly looks like callous negligence, deception and fraud, Burzynski’s unquestioning fans should be looking very hard at what the good doctor actually offers in his clinic, and whether he is acting in the best interests of his patients, or his bank balance:http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/19/43165.htm

Another fine piece Rhys, your passion is impressive as you back it up with fact- too many people get carried away with their own feelings that they forget that very important side of it!
Thanks for putting in that link to David Gorski’s page, really fascinating stuff. Even without any medical training and minimal knowledge I understood most of it and was shocked by his findings. With clear information like this, from someone who is so obviously well trained, well read and well respected in his field, it is baffling that anyone can back Burzynski, let alone give him money.
Keep up the good work and I really really hope that, eventually, it will pay off.
Much respect man.

Observation:
Unfortunately, it appears the person who contacted you may not have been actually a legal representative. At some point in your communications, I believe you mention you even suspected as much.

Out of fairness, is tough based off those communications alone, to determine if the Doctor was aware of this situation with your blog and the person who contacted you. To the contrary, it would appear Burzynski’s legal council may have absolutely nothing to do with the original offending communication of a 3rd party non-lawyer. (which continues to portray his client in a bad light)

Now that you have had some sort of contact with his real legal council, I am sure your council can help you sort the “fairness” of that issue, if it has ever actually been raised by the Doctor at all, which was unclear,

Reason for my post:

Last night on Netflix viewed a movie called “Burzynski”. Today, I googled his name and read your blog. I had never heard of him.

Recognizing the movie “Burzynski” may not change your opinion regarding the treatment at all, Out of fairness, I do think the movie affords the viewer a different perspective regarding some of the questions you raise.

In particular, “why the trials that had been started may have been stopped”, As well as some insight regarding some rather significant legal costs and administrative burdens he has faced, Those significant legal costs and administrative burdens,(which were eye opening) could also be provide insight relating to the costs associated with running the facility and providing the treatments.

I didn’t notice a post mentioning your viewing of the movie, which I located on netflix. I noted there was a facebook page for the movie as well. I myself have no personal opinion as to the efficacy of this treatment, However, the legal issues raised in the movie were very significant. I recommend watching it.

I need to correct something in my previous post that I attributed to you incorrectly. Below is the portion of my post:
.

“Now that you have had some sort of contact with his real legal council,”
.
.

The above referenced communication with the is not a result of reading your postings but instead another blogger and not yourself. You may or may not have had subsequent communications with the doctors actual attorney, that is unclear to me. The mistake came as a result from my viewing several articles including your own that are linked from one site. Again my apologies in advance.
.
.Best Regards

Anti neoplaston therapy seems to be working for Laura! If Laura had listened to you Rhys she would be dead! What do you have to say to that? Why do you insist antineoplastons are a fraud when people have been healed by it?
Just because it doesn’t heal everyone dosen’t mean it can’t help some people.
Chemotherapy only works in 3% of cases and it isn’t cheap either!http://www.hopeforlaurafund.co.uk/

Regarding specific patients, I’m thrilled that something is helping them fight their cancer, but Burzynski lies about what he is treating people with, about the results he is getting, and about the data he has to back up his claims. Bringing a specific single patient into the mix doesn’t change this, even if the patient says they are getting spectacular results.

Anti-neoplaston therapy is chemotherapy – the only difference is that it’s untested, and that unlike ethical doctors, Dr. B has no qualms about charging people for the privilege of being his guinea pigs.

Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski continuously publishes scientific articles, book chapters and delivers scientific presentations. Below is a list of published work. For more information about a specific publication or to obtain a copy, please email info@burzynskiclinic.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
PUBLICATIONS BY S.R. BURZYNSKI AND ASSOCIATES

Burzynski, S.R. The breakthrough in therapy and prevention in medicine of 21st century (1). The medicine of genome an epigenome. Medycyna genomu i epigenomu. Czasopismo Aptekarskie 2006;Nr 11 (155) 45-52.

Burzynski, S.R. The Methylation Control of Gene Activation and Silencing Theory. The Basic Principles and Practice of Anti-Aging Medicine & Age Management for the Aesthetic Surgeon and Physician. Vincent C. Giampapa (Ed.) 2003;33-4.

Burzynski, S., Czerniak, Z. A simple method for the separation of free and bound amino acids and its application to the identification of bound amino acids in human blood serum. Chem Anal 1970;15:223-225.

Krzeczkowska, I., Burzynski, S., Czerniak, Z. Investigations on the possibility of the determination of mushroom species on the basis of the composition of their amino acids. Ann Univ MC Sklodowska 1965;20:221-229.

Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Szymkowski, B., Burzynski, G.S. Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with brainstem glioma. Protocol BC-BT-11. Presented at the 3rd Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology jointly with the 6th Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology; May 11-14, 2009; Yokohama, Japan.

Weaver, R.A., Szymkowski, B., Burzynski, S.R. Over a 10-year survival and complete response of a patient with diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma (DBSG) treated with antineoplastons (ANP). Presented at the 3rd Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology jointly with the 6th Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology; May 11-14, 2009; Yokohama, Japan.

Weaver, R., De Leon, L., Burzynski, S. A complete response in a patient with inoperable adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas treated with a combination of gene-targeted therapies. Presented at the 20th International Congress on Anti-Cancer Treatment; February 3-February 6, 2009; Paris, France.

Burzynski, S.R. Master Clock of Life (I) “Junk DNA” and Promotors Region as Major Components of the Clock. Presented at: XIII International Congres of Anti-Aging Medicine; August 19-21, 2005; Chicago, Illinois.

Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Janicki, T.J., Burzynski, B., Jurida, G. Targeted therapy with ANP in children less than 4 years old with inoperable brain stem gliomas. Presented at: 2nd Quadrennial meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology/ 6th meeting of the European Association of NeuroOncology; May 5-8, 2005; Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Burzynski, S.R. Interaction of antineoplastons with genome in cancer and aging. Presented at: Annual Meeting of International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology; September 12-13, 2003, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Burzynski, S.R. The State of Antineoplaston Research – Spring of 2003. Presented at the 5th Annual Comprehensive Cancer Care Conference; April 11, 2003, Washington, DC.

Waldbillig, R.J., Burzynski, S.R. The application of chromatography to the pharmacokinetic study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1. Presented at the 3rd International Symposium of Chromatography and Natural Products; June 12-15, 2002, Lublin, Poland.

Lee, S.S., Burzynski, S.R. A Unique Pattern of Growth Inhibition by Antineoplaston A5 on a T-Leukemia Cell Line. Presented at the 14th Annual meeting of the International Society of Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine; August, 1986; Helsinki, Finland.

Hendry, L.B., Lehner, A.F., Burzynski, S.R. Spectroscopic Studies of the Interaction of Antineoplaston A10 with DNA. Presented at the 12th Symposium of the International Association for Comparative Research on Leukemia and Related Disease; July, 1985; Hamburg, Germany.

Congratulations on cut and pasting from Burzynski’s CV, freely available on his clinic’s website. However, you clearly fail to understand the value of what he has “published”. So many of these are just abstracts of posters presented at various conferences. Not peer-reviewed and containing only preliminary data. Herein lies a problem – he has only ever shown preliminary data. For a useful summary of his “publications” I suggest you read http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2011/11/a-look-at-the-burzynski-clinics-publications/

You are amazingly brainwashed by corporate media, and shitty blogs for that matter. You defend the very people that oppress you and that’s sad. The fact is, Burzynski’s treatments are more effective than outdated chemo and radiation (patented in the 1970’s?), and are non-toxic. There’s no argument to the contrary.

All of the studies published by Kevin Stahl above are indeed respectable journals. You’re telling me that Neuro-Oncology from Oxford Journals of Oxford University Press is not? Who are you going to trust, some hate blog, or a professional medical study and publication? Once the hate blogs get their “data” into Neuro-Oncology, maybe I’ll listen to them.

There are counterarguments about the toxicity. Go to theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com. All of those are patients, and all of the ones on ANP talk about the toxic side effects. If you read his consent form, he lists the toxicities. But if you won’t believe Burzynski, who will you believe, eh?

Yeah, having to take a piss a lot seems to be the major side effect. Now let’s compare that to chemo and radiation that are so harmful they can create their own diseases aside from the original cancer.

I can only assume from that comment that you really have no clue about what is meant by evidence and critical appraisal. The claimed “publications” in Neuro-Oncology are just abstracts of conference posters. This is why they are not listed as publications in PubMed. Conference posters are rarely, if ever, peer-reviewed and are regarded by the scientific and medical community as being very low-level.

The lack of evidence disclaiming his presentation in his movie is equally damning.

That is the point of all this of course to get to the truth about if he is being suppressed or if he is a quack which you conclude with absolutely Zero evidence.

Can you discredit the facts presented in his movie? That the same people who sought to prosecute him attempted to gain patents on his ideas, and that they intentionally attempted to skew results of clinical trials to discredit him by not following the protocols? What empirical evidence can you present that this is false?

The story of this Dr. is documented with court filings. Can you discredit the filings and findings?

What evidence do you have did not that a former employee along with the United States didn’t attempt to patent his ideas?

All this post does is beg the questions raised by the movie. Which is simply is he being railroaded because he has patents in such a manor that the certain Dr.’s, FDA and the NCI attempted to both steal his patent and intentionally skew the results of test that were begun so they could be discredited.

Have you seen the presentation in the movie? Do you claim that the facts presented therein are false? If so, post for us the truth that is misrepresented in the film. Thanks.

I am a atheist and skeptical like you, but I accept that the Vitamin B17 prevent cancer, cure cancer preventing it.

. “ANTINEOPLASTON”, “Quemoterapy” “Radiatiation” “Surgey” only treat the consecuense, not cause of cancer…

You can read “world without cancer” of Edward Griffin and know the REAL HISTORY BEHIND THE CANCER BUSINESS. You can read “ALIVE AND WELL” of Philip E. Binzel y make your conclusion about it….

You can find information about ALL THE PEOPLE Mentioned in these books, more relevant scientific information in PUBMED… also, find information about the scientist mentioned in “World Without Cancer” in many journals of medicine, including biography of Kanematsu Sugiura…

Read the history of vitamin b17. You will be surprise…
It doesnt matter if it is or not a vitamin. The importance here is that PREVENT CANCER…

Finally, Burzynski has found no cure. He Is only doing what other doctors are doing with the RADIO AND CHEMO and becoming rich at the expense of the sick. Their treatment does not cure all cancer, according to his own documentary “Burzinski, cancer is serious business.” He is trying the consequence, not the cause of cancer.

Perhaps your kiddy propaganda doesn’t get it. The United States is not Wales. In the United States, the federal regulators, peer review process, the medical industry, and higher education institutions are all beholden to huge private industries. The fact that Burzynski hasn’t been “officially” published is telling, not of the morality of Burzynski himself, but of the morality of the commercial publishers who are unwilling to publish his work.

The only reason that you’ve gotten all of this publicity is because it’s profitable to amplify voices like yours, while silencing any voices of dissent. One would think that this would be obvious to someone like yourself who is supposedly an atheist and a skeptic. How is it that you can see through the lies of religion, yet totally blind yourself to any wrongdoing in contemporary medicine, or, profit-driven industry on the whole? You might as well go to your nearest stock exchange or central bank and start praying to the gods of private enterprise. I think as you grow older, you will look back at your mini-legacy and your Wikipedia page in deep personal regret.

This is a typical response from a typical woo-peddler. Poor Dr. Burzynski is the victim, and his so-called persecution is always someone else’s fault. He’s being “kept down” by “the man”, right?

Your self righteous attitude and act is typical, and quite common. You talk about “silencing voices of dissent”, yet you, and many others who are quite obviously loud and vocal voices of dissent have your comments posted right here in this very blog comment section. With that one proclamation, you show yourself to be a liar.

Don’t you think other people notice simple and blatant lies like this? If you will lie about being “silenced” when all can plainly see that you are not, what else are you willing to lie about?

Dr. Burzynski is morally reprehensible, and unfortunately, so are you.

Well…I am happy to know that even when people don’t believe some people still try hard to achieve what they always wanted to…and some of you are just missed informed! Just yesterday I watched a documentary about Dr Burzynsky an that is a MAN with the power to fight and fight over and over again and if you can understand what was said and proved you will never say that he was doing wrong! OPEN YOUR EYES and your HEARS!!!

This latest research was not reflected in the 2011 guidance from NICE which does not recommend the combination treatment. Whether doctors will prescribe both medicines together, especially on the NHS, is unclear.